Are there redacted or court-ordered changes between memoir editions that affect named allegations, and which chapters were altered?
Executive summary
Redactions and publisher-ordered alterations have occurred in high-profile memoirs — most notably Rebel Wilson’s Rebel Rising, where the UK and Australia/New Zealand editions removed or blacked out material from a chapter titled “Sacha Baron Cohen and Other Assholes”; HarperCollins said it redacted “most of one page” and some additional lines in the UK edition and blacked out the whole chapter in Australia/New Zealand for legal reasons [1] [2]. Reporting across Variety, The Guardian, The New York Times, People and other outlets documents the same change and identifies the specific chapter affected [3] [4] [1] [5].
1. The clear example: Rebel Wilson’s memoir and which chapter was altered
Multiple mainstream outlets reported that Rebel Wilson’s U.S. edition of Rebel Rising contained allegations about Sacha Baron Cohen that were subsequently redacted for other territories; HarperCollins told The New York Times it would redact “most of one page” plus “some other small redactions” in the U.K. edition and an entire chapter — “Sacha Baron Cohen and Other Assholes” — was printed as blacked‑out lines in the Australia/New Zealand edition [1] [2]. The chapter named in reporting is explicit: the passages concern Wilson’s account of on‑set conduct during filming of The Brothers Grimsby [4] [5].
2. How publishers described the change and why they gave that reason
Publishers framed the edits as responses to legal risk in jurisdictions with different defamation laws. HarperCollins’ statement quoted in The New York Times explained the redactions were “for legal reasons” and referenced the “peculiarities” of English and Welsh law in other reports; outlets relay that the publisher said the redactions are a small portion of a larger work but necessary for international editions [1] [6] [2].
3. Competing perspectives in the coverage
Reporting captures two competing narratives: Wilson and supporters framed the material as part of her honest memoir and part of “my story” that she has a right to tell [7]; Sacha Baron Cohen’s representatives called the claims “demonstrably false” and said evidence contradicted them, and his team celebrated the redactions as a vindication, per Business Insider and The Guardian [4] [8]. Coverage from Variety, People and Vulture documents both the redactions and the denials [3] [5] [6].
4. What the sources actually specify — facts versus absence of reporting
Available reports consistently specify: (a) the chapter title affected, (b) that the U.K. edition had most of a page and some lines redacted, and (c) Australia/New Zealand editions printed the chapter blacked out [1] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention court orders or judicial rulings compelling the redactions; articles attribute the changes to publisher decisions citing legal risk rather than reporting any court‑ordered injunctions [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention other memoirs being altered in the same way beyond this case in the set of provided results (p2_s1–[3]3).
5. Patterns, precedent and why territory matters
Journalistic accounts emphasize that defamation and libel laws differ across common‑law jurisdictions, which can prompt publishers to alter editions for the UK, Australia or New Zealand even when U.S. editions print material unaltered; the HarperCollins statements and reporting explicitly connect the removals to English and Australian legal environments [1] [2]. The pattern in this case shows publishers weigh litigation risk differently by market and may choose partial redaction, full black‑outs, or explanatory notes accordingly [6] [9].
6. Limits of the reporting and what’s not in current coverage
Current reporting in the supplied sources does not document any court orders or judicial decisions mandating changes; coverage attributes redactions to publisher choices driven by legal concerns and to counterstatements from the accused party [1] [8]. The provided sources do not catalogue other memoirs with similar chapter‑level redactions beyond Rebel Wilson’s case in these search results (p2_s1–[3]3). If you want confirmation of court filings, legal notices, or publisher errata beyond press statements, that material is not present in the current reporting.
7. Takeaway for readers and researchers
When a memoir appears different across markets, reporting often traces the difference to publisher risk‑assessments under local defamation law rather than to changes in the author’s account; in the Rebel Wilson case, the specific chapter named by multiple outlets was altered in non‑U.S. editions and those outlets present both the author’s viewpoint and the denial from the accused’s team [4] [7] [8]. For definitive legal documentation of any court involvement or to map all editions and page‑level changes, consult publisher release notes, international ISBN records, or legal filings — items not found in the supplied articles (available sources do not mention court orders).